Collins v. West Alabama Bank & Trust, [Ms. SC-2024-0274; SC-2024-0275, Sept. 12, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). In a per curiam opinion, the Court affirms the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court’s summary judgments in favor of West Alabama Bank & Trust in two separate ejectment actions following the bank’s foreclosure of separate mortgages on a residential and commercial property of mortgagors Russell A. Collins and Stacey D. Collins.
The Court first declines to consider “evidence [in support of various affirmative defenses] that the Collinses submitted for the first time in support of their postjudgment motions,” Ms. *16, and explains
“it is incumbent upon a defendant to assert the applicability of any properly pleaded affirmative defenses in opposition to a plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion if the defendant intends to rely on those affirmative defenses in defending against the arguments raised in the summary-judgment motion. In other words, the time for producing substantial evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact concerning those affirmative defenses is in response to the summary-judgment motion, i.e., before the trial court enters a final judgment. If the defendant fails to do so, the trial court cannot be placed in error on appeal for failing to consider, in the abstract, whether those affirmative defenses might have been applicable when deciding on the proper disposition of the summary[1]judgment motion. See Tucker, 963 So. 2d at 70 (“A trial court can rule on only those issues and arguments properly presented to it.”).
Ms. **15-16, citing Hun Es Tu Malade? #16, LLC v. Tucker, 963 So. 2d 55 (Ala. 2006).
Citing Hayden v. Smith, 216 Ala. 428, 113 So. 293 (1927) on alleged inadequacy of the foreclosure bid price, the Court affirms the summary judgments. A plurality of the Court summarizes the Hayden frame work on inadequacy of bid price as follows that “‘a court can set aside a foreclosure sale based on evidence of an inadequate sale price: (1) if the sale price is at or below one-tenth of the property’s fair market value or (1) if the sale price is at or below one-tenth of the property’s fair market value or (2) if the sale price is above one-tenth and below one-third of the property’s fair market value and there is evidence of some “other circumstance[] showing unfairness, misconduct, fraud, or even stupid management, resulting in the sacrifice of the property.’” Ms. **21-22.